Mod Archive Forums
Website => Help & Support => Help Support Topics Archive => Topic started by: themoon_follow on January 20, 2021, 12:22:42
-
Hear me out on this:
Katherine (http://youtube.com/channel/UCp30d_i4ux_IiIN9uxy9bmA) and I have hosted some streams where we play some of TMA's modules as a part of Test Streams in the couse of a few weeks. Test Streams can be found here. (http://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPZ0ctqIAzjnV_Jtj4fDuBVo-GaSlHKR5) We'll also include a TMA disclosure on how we handle the playback during the streams. (http://thebelovedmoon.bookmark.com/regarding-modarchive-stream) Excuse the font face in the page, whoops. :P As it is my responsibility to host such modules into the streams, I'll handle the hard stuff (permissions and such), which may fall under Section 4 of TMA Terms & Disclaimer (http://modarchive.org/index.php?terms).
As stated in the disclosure (and the main point of this topic), there ARE some modules that are detected by the service's copyright system. If I'm correct, such identifications are attributed to the module's samples (please excuse my somewhat-aggressive approach on this matter). However, this topic doesn't apply to modules which are re-created from scratch (in short, a remix), with samples that are NOT identical to the original ones published before them. (I have made one before, admittedly, but upon broadcast, there seems to be no issues; it is because of manual re-creation with different samples that really sound different than the original.)
I hate to see the modules being disappeared as this is an outstanding archive to begin with, but I also hate to see lawsuits and copyright claims coming from all directions that will ruin the reputation of this platform.
Now how would that relate to the topic in any way?
During one of my earlier private playbacks, I have stumbled upon this module file (http://modarchive.org/module.php?91620) that I might have to focus on. Upon closer inspection (which involves downloading the module and inspecting the samples), I began researching the origins of such samples. This is the original one that is the exact equivalent to that module file. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=5YE2hjSYHjc) I can agree this is a remix, but like I said, it HAS to be re-created [from scratch] and NOT use the samples that sound exactly alike, which falls under Section 4 of TMA Terms & Disclaimer and Section 1 of TMA Upload Terms and Agreement (http://modarchive.org/index.php?terms-upload).
~~~
I'm open to discussions on how this will turn out. Though I'm not sure what category this topic would befall to, I feel like the Support Category would be the haven for every topic I may have in mind.
Keep tracking and stay sane, people. ;D
-
In one sentence: Don't expect to not run into ContentID problems if you stream other people's works.
Note that your videos can receive copyright strikes for a variety of reasons.
- for no particular reasons at all, except that the algorithm "thinks" that a module is similar to some commercial track while it really isn't.
- stuff that falls under fair use, as the ContentID algorithm cannot judge fair use
- a commercial song and a module share a very obvious sample but neither of them is the original source
- a module artists decided to register their modules with a distribution platform that works together with YouTube ContentID
- someone misrepresents module artists (https://modarchive.org/forums/index.php?topic=4573.0)
- a commercial artist plagiarized a module (hello Timbaland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controversy))
- and of course the obvious one, someone sampled commercial music
With so many different legitimate and not-so-legitimate reasons, you really cannot expect that a stream of random modules will not get at least one ContentID hit, and there is really nothing we can do here for you. It's your own responsibility to deal with that, but as you are not the copyright holder of the module, there is typically little you can do. ModArchive won't be taken down for low-quality remixes people did 30 years ago, don't worry. But your stream might. If you want to keep it safe, listen to modules before streaming them and check for obvious commercial samples.
-
Thanks for the advice; I mean, I'm not really expecting any turnarounds or whatever that was. Like I said, I'll take care of the hard stuff.
Also, possibly unrelated, I have just bumped into your post about the "Parker Kurz" incident. I'll try to chip in as soon as I'm able to. :)
-
Unfortunately false copyright flagging is a huge issue at the moment all across the board what comes to music that isn't officially registered (e.g. via ISRCs). As far as the contentID algorithms are concerned, most of module music doesn't exist, so it very easily flags minor similarities with commercially released tracks as infringements. Especially samples taken from sample packs (loops, phrases, vocals and such) will get flagged very easily when the algorithm cannot find an exact match for the whole track. Doesn't mean the samples would be illegal, just that the same samples have been used in registered music and it just happens to be the closest thing the algorithm finds.
I've noticed the behaviour has become increasingly aggressive on bigger platforms like Youtube and Twitch lately, up to the point where the content flagging seems just utterly chaotic. It's more of a rule than an exception that unregistered pieces of music get instantly flagged upon upload in Youtube nowadays. Makes you feel very warm and fuzzy when you put out a showreel and Youtube claims there are 8 different artists on it.
-
I guess it also doesn't help that refuting a claim is a very intimidating process in particular if it's not even your own music that is being misidentified - if I remember correctly, YouTube asks for some legal information which may be very off-putting for many people to go through the process. Can you even refute the claim if you don't own the rights to the actual song being played these days?
-
I guess it also doesn't help that refuting a claim is a very intimidating process in particular if it's not even your own music that is being misidentified - if I remember correctly, YouTube asks for some legal information which may be very off-putting for many people to go through the process. Can you even refute the claim if you don't own the rights to the actual song being played these days?
You can refute Youtube copyright claims on videos for Fair Use, Public Domain and if you have (written) license to use the work, alongside just outright owning the copyright yourself. The process is fairly simple, but I imagine it might get annoying if all of your streams get flagged every time with a hundred claims.
-
Yeah, I can hardly imagine the possibilities.